Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature

Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.     

Comparing the rates of low-value back images ordered by physicians and nurse practitioners for Medicare beneficiaries in primary care

BackgroundLittle is known about the extent of ordering low-value services by.PurposeTo compare the rates of low-value back images ordered by primary care physicians (PCMDs) and primary care nurse practitioners (PCNPs).MethodWe used 2012 and 2013 Medicare Part B claims for all beneficiaries in 18 hospital referral ?regions (HRRs) and a measure of low-value back imaging from Choosing Wisely. Models included random clinician effect and fixed effects for beneficiary age, disability, Elixhauser comorbidities, clinician sex, the emergency department setting, back pain visit volume, organization, and region (HRR).FindingsPCNPs (N = 231) and PCMDs (N = 4,779) order low-value back images at similar rates (NP: all images: 26.5%; MRI/CT: 8.4%; MD: all images: 24.5%; MRI/CT: 7.7%), with no detectable significant difference when controlling for covariates.DiscussionPCNPs and PCMDs order low-value back images at an effectively similar rate.     

Population pharmacokinetics of tanezumab in phase 3 clinical trials for osteoarthritis pain

AimsThe aims were to 1) develop the pharmacokinetics model to describe and predict observed tanezumab concentrations over time, 2) test possible covariate parameter relationships that could influence clearance and distribution and 3) assess the impact of fixed dosing vs. a dosing regimen adjusted by body weight.MethodsIndividual concentration–time data were determined from 1608 patients in four phase 3 studies conducted to assess efficacy and safety of intravenous tanezumab. Patients received two or three intravenous doses (2.5, 5 or 10 mg) every 8 weeks. Blood samples for assessment of tanezumab PK were collected at baseline, 1 h post‐dose and at weeks 4, 8, 16 and 24 (or early termination) in all studies. Blood samples were collected at week 32 in two studies. Plasma samples were analyzed using a sensitive, specific, validated enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay.ResultsA two compartment model with parallel linear and non‐linear elimination processes adequately described the data. Population estimates for clearance (CL), central volume (V ₁), peripheral volume (V ₂), inter‐compartmental clearance, maximum elimination capacity (VM) and concentration at half‐maximum elimination capacity were 0.135 l day^–1, 2.71 l, 1.98 l, 0.371 l day^–1, 8.03 μg day^–1 and 27.7 ng ml^–1, respectively. Inter‐individual variability (IIV) was included on CL, V ₁, V ₂ and VM. A mixture model accounted for the distribution of residual error. While gender, dose and creatinine clearance were significant covariates, only body weight as a covariate of CL, V ₁ and V ₂ significantly reduced IIV.ConclusionsThe small increase in variability associated with fixed dosing is consistent with other monoclonal antibodies and does not change risk : benefit.     

Simeprevir added to peginterferon and ribavirin lessens time with fatigue,depressive symptoms and functional limitations in patients with chronic hepatitis C compared with peginterferon and ribavirin: results from 1161 patients in the QUEST‐1, QUEST‐2 and PROMISE studies

The value of adding simeprevir (SMV) vs placebo (PBO) to peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) for treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection was examined using patient‐reported outcomes (PROs); further, concordance of PROs with virology endpoints and adverse events (AEs) was explored. Patients (n = 768 SMV/PR, n = 393 PBO/PR) rated fatigue (FSS), depressive symptoms (CES‐D) and functional impairment (WPAI: Hepatitis C Productivity, Daily Activity and Absenteeism) at baseline and throughout treatment in three randomised, double‐blind trials comparing the addition of SMV or PBO during initial 12 weeks of PR. PR was administered for 48 weeks (PBO group) and 24/48 weeks (SMV group) using a response‐guided therapy (RGT) approach. Mean PRO scores (except Absenteeism) worsened from baseline to Week 4 to the same extent in both groups but reverted after Week 24 for SMV/PR and only after Week 48 for PBO/PR. Accordingly, there was a significantly lower area under the curve (baseline–Week 60, AUC₆₀) and fewer weeks with clinically important worsening of scores in the SMV/PR group at any time point. Incidences of patients with fatigue and anaemia AEs were similar in both groups, but FSS scores showed that clinically important increases in fatigue lasted a mean of 6.9 weeks longer with PBO/PR (P < 0.001). PRO score subgroup analysis indicated better outcomes for patients who met the criteria for RGT or achieved sustained virological response 12 weeks post‐treatment (SVR12); differences in mean PRO scores associated with fibrosis level were only observed with PBO/PR. Greater efficacy of SMV/PR enabled reduced treatment duration and reduced time with PR‐related AEs without adding to AE severity.